V.P. Lakshmi vs Dr. M. Sarvothaman

The appeal is at the instance of the complainant who initiated the proceedings against the respondent u/s 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights

Act, on an allegation that on 4.6.1986, the respondent/accused abused the appellant/complainant by calling her caste name and also ordered her to

get out of the room by saying that she being a lower caste woman cannot speak to a person hailing from a higher caste. Before the trial court, the

appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and two others on her side to establish the said allegation. The trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on

several grounds and one of them is that the complaint is barred by limitation.

In view of the Judgment that I propose to pass, I find it unnecessary to advert to all the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in his judgment

for the acquittal and suffice it to me to say that the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground of limitation. It is the

case of the appellant that she was abused by the respondent by calling her caste name and admittedly a private complaint was filed by her in the

court on 16.8.1991. The maximum punishment contemplated for the offence u/s 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is six months

imprisonment and if so, the complaint right to have been filed within one year from the date of incident in terms of Section 468(2)(b), Cr.P.C. As

the complaint was laid after five years, it is barred by limitation. It is, of course, true that the appellant has in her evidence, stated that she gave a

complaint on 14.6.1986 to the Inspector of Police, Protection of Civil Rights Wing, and thereafter also, she laid a complaint to the superintendent

of Police on 19.11.1987. According to her, as the police did not take any action, she laid the present complaint in the court. The trial court

rejected her explanation by holding that she did not take any step to summon those complaints which she allegedly lodged with the police. The

appellant also did not file any petition u/s 473 Cr.P.C. praying for condonation of the delay in laying the complaint. Therefore, the trial court was of

the view that the complaint itself is barred by limitation and the respondent is entitled for an acquittal.

On going through the evidence of the learned Magistrate on the above aspect, I find that the complaint is barred by limitation and the explanation

given by the appellant is not satisfactorily established. The acquittal of the respondent is, therefore, justified and the appeal is dismissed.